Incorrect Greek Details in Acts 10-11Acts 11
Posted 06 September 2012 - 12:43 PM
The instant details say that this form comes from μη, δε, and εγω. However, Liddell Scott record that the form actually comes from μηδε and αμος.
It is a classical term that only occurs twice in the GNT. I think Liddell Scott is correct and the instant details need changing.
Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:17 PM
13" MacBook Pro Mojave Acc 12
mid-2017 3.5 GHz Intel Core i7 (2 cores)
16 GB RAM; 512 GB SSD
iPad Pro iOS 12
iPhone 8 iOS 12
Used for backup only:
Mac mini Mojave Acc 12
late-2012 2.3GHz Intel Core i7 (4 cores)
16 GB RAM; 1.12 TB Fusion Drive
Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:50 PM
With Accordance 9.5.3 and up you can report a correction from the program by highlighting the text and going to the Help or the right-click menu. This is intended for typos, misreadings, and other types of corrections to the text ortool module, not a way to report bugs.
Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:46 PM
Posted 06 September 2012 - 06:04 PM
Edited by James Tucker, 06 September 2012 - 09:50 PM.
Posted 07 September 2012 - 10:07 AM
1124 is the entry for μηδαμα (μηδαμως is listed in the morphologies). It is adverbial, as you say. I'm not sure why you then say its adjectival.
On p85, there is possible evidence that αμος is related to a pronoun (but derivation is not the nature of that relationship). The lexicon tells us that αμος is used for εμος (that does not mean derived from or dependent on) and is semantically equivalent with τις. If one keeps looking, one will find that this form has evolved from an old Doric form (αμα on pg 75) that explicitly connotes time in adverbial relationships.
So, there are 2 views of this etymology- one including a relationship with the pronoun τις (though "morphologically dependent upon" is not in view) and the other tracing the odd suffix back to a Doric form that explicitly does time jobs. I think the latter view has more weight, and explains why this old word is do infrequent in the GNT.
To the tagging- at the very least, I think εγω should be replaced with τις in the instant details. I have not found any mention of εγω when looking into this etymology. If you still defend the use of εγω in this instance, I ask that you please give a reference, so all may be blessed.
- Abram K-J likes this
Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:07 PM
Posted 12 September 2012 - 02:14 PM
So have the Accordance scholars come to a consensus yet?
The tagging is maintained largely by one of our scholars who rarely checks the forum…if it hasn't been already, we'll forward it to him to check.
Director of Content Development
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users